Wapack National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Wapack National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
October 2008
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for
conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 97-million acre National
Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 548 national wildlife refuges and thousands
of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries and 81 ecological
services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat
such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments
with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment
to state wildlife agencies.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions
and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and
identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning
levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are
primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do
not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases,
or funding for future land acquisition.
This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling,
has become the symbol of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
Cover Picture: View from North Pack Monadnock. Lelaina Marin/USFWS
Approval by:
Concurrence by:
Submitted by:
Graham Taylor
Refuge Manager
Parker River National Wildlife Refuge
Date
Janet M. Kennedy
Refuge Supervisor North, Region 5
National Wildlife Refuge System
Date
Anthony D. Legér
Regional Chief, Region 5
National Wildlife Refuge System
Date
Marvin E. Moriarty
Regional Director, Region 5
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Date
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
October 2008
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
October 2008
Abstract
Type of Action:  Administrative
Lead Agency:  U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Location:  Wapack National Wildlife Refuge
 Greenfield and Temple, NH
Administrative Headquarters: Parker River National Wildlife Refuge
 Newburyport, MA
Responsible Official:  Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5, Northeast
For Further Information:  Nancy McGarigal, Natural Resource Planner
 Northeast Regional Office
 300 Westgate Center Drive
 Hadley, MA 01035
 (413) 253-8562
 northeastplanning@fws.gov
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the 1,625 acre Wapack National Wildlife
Refuge (refuge) is the culmination of a planning effort involving New Hampshire Fish and
Game, local partners, refuge neighbors, private landowners, and the local community. The CCP
establishes 15-year management goals and objectives for wildlife and habitat, and public use
and access.
Under this plan, we make improvements to our biological and visitor services program through
partnerships with other federal agencies, state agencies, town departments, local conservation
organizations, and individuals. We formalize our partnerships to maintain trails, trailheads, and
pursue a new parking area. We will improve our presence and visibility at the refuge and in the
local community. We will also work with land conservation partners to help them identify land
that should be protected for wildlife and help them choose the best methods/techniques for
managing those areas.
Refuge Vision Statement
Encompassing the North Pack Monadnock Mountain in southern New Hampshire,
the Wapack National Wildlife Refuge provides exceptional mature spruce-fir and
northern hardwood-mixed habitat for wildlife, particularly migratory birds. We will
manage the refuge to preserve its natural conditions in a setting which appears to
have been affected primarily by the forces of nature.
All visitors are welcome to enjoy opportunities to observe and photograph nature
along refuge trails, including a 4-mile segment of the Wapack trail. The rock
outcrop and cliff on the mountain peak afford an ideal location to view migrating
hawks each fall. Old and new partnerships with other federal agencies, state
agencies, local conservation organization, and volunteers will foster public
stewardship of this refuge and its resources, and enhance public understanding of
the role of the National Wildlife Refuge System in conserving our nation’s trust
resources.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
October 2008
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 The Purpose of and Need for Action  Page
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1-1
The Purpose of and Need for Action...................................................................................... 1-3
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding our Planning...... 1-3
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project...................................................... 1-6
Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History.................................... 1-9
Refuge Vision Statement and Goals....................................................................................... 1-9
Chapter 2 The Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process......................................................... 2-1
Issues.......................................................................................................................................... 2-2
Issues Outside the Scope of this Project or Not Completely Within the
Jurisdiction of the Service....................................................................................................... 2-5
Actions Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.................................................... 2-5
Chapter 3 Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 3-1
Geology and Land Use Setting................................................................................................ 3-1
Regional Demographics & Economic Setting....................................................................... 3-3
Refuge Staffing and Operations.............................................................................................. 3-5
Habitat Types and Vegetation.................................................................................................. 3-5
Wildlife Resources.................................................................................................................... 3-9
Visitor Services......................................................................................................................... 3-10
Cultural or Historic Resources................................................................................................ 3-11
Chapter 4 Management Direction and Implementation
Management Direction and Implementation........................................................................ 4-1
General Refuge Management................................................................................................. 4-1
Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies............................................................................. 4-5
Glossary and Acronyms....................................................................................................... Glos-1
Bibliography.......................................................................................................................... Biblio-1

Appendixes
Appendix A. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations................. A-1
Appendix B. Wilderness Review............................................................................................. B-1
Appendix C. Species Known or Suspected to Occur on the Refuge,
including Species of Conservation Concern.................................................. C-1
Appendix D. Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS).................... D-1
Appendix E. Consultation and Coordination with Others.................................................... E-1
Appendix F. Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses................................ F-1
Appendix G. ESA Section 7 Consultation............................................................................... G-1
Appendix H. Finding of No Significant Impact...................................................................... H-1
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process...................................... 2-1
List of Tables
Table 3.1. Refuge revenue sharing payments to the towns of Greenfield
and Temple, 2000-2007............................................................................................ 3-4
Table 3.2. Acreage of habitat types at Wapack refuge....................................................... 3-5
List of Maps
Map 1-1. Location of Wapack NWR....................................................................................... 1-2
Map 3-1. Habitat Types............................................................................................................. 3-6
Map 4-1. Refuge Trails.............................................................................................................. 4-4
Map G-1. Location of Wapack NWR....................................................................................... G-4
Chapter 1
The Purpose of and Need for Action
n Introduction
n The Purpose of and Need for Action
n The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding
our Planning
n Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
n Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History
n Refuge Vision Statement and Goals
Top of North Pack Monadnock
Andrew Ward/Conway School of Landscape Design
The Purpose of and Need for Action
Introduction
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) became the first national wildlife refuge in New Hampshire in
1972, when Laurence and Lorna Marshall donated land to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we,
our). The terms of their deed prohibit hunting, fishing and trapping, cutting trees (except for maintaining
trails), or driving motorized vehicles. It also requires us to manage the refuge in a “wilderness-like” setting.
This 1,625-acre refuge was established with the purpose of protecting migratory birds. It encompasses the
2,278-foot North Pack Monadnock Mountain in the towns of Greenfield and Temple (see map 1–1). Many
people visit the refuge to hike its four trails, including a 4-mile section of the Wapack Trail, which passes
over the top of the mountain and offers outstanding opportunities for viewing migratory hawks. The
Wapack refuge is administered by staff from the Parker River refuge in Newburyport, Massachusetts.
This comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the refuge was prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act) (Pub. L. 105-57; 111 Stat. 1253). An
environmental assessment (EA), required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 852), was prepared concurrent with the draft CCP.
This document presents the combination of management goals, objectives and strategies that will guide
management decisions and actions on the refuge over the next 15 years. It will also be a tool to help the
State of New Hampshire natural resource agencies, our conservation partners, local communities, and the
public understand our priorities.
This document has 4 chapters and 8 appendixes. Chapter 1 explains the purpose of and need for preparing a
CCP, and sets the stage for three subsequent chapters and the appendixes. It also
􀂃􈌠 presents the mission, policies and mandates affecting the development of the plan;
􀂃􈌠 identifies other conservation plans we used as references;
􀂃􈌠 lists the purposes for which we established the refuge and its land acquisition history; and,
􀂃􈌠 clarifies the vision and goals that drive refuge management.
Chapter 2, “The Planning Process,” describes the planning process we followed, including public and
partner involvement, in the course of developing this final plan.
Chapter 3, “Refuge and Resource Descriptions,” describes the existing physical, biological and human
environment.
Chapter 4, “Management Direction and Implementation,” presents the general refuge management actions,
and the goals, objectives and strategies that will guide decision-making and land management. It also
outlines our staffing and funding needs to accomplish the management direction.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-1
Chapter 1
1-2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Purpose of and Need for Action
The Purpose of and Need for Action
We developed a CCP for the refuge that best achieves its purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System); adheres to Service policies and other
mandates; addresses significant issues; and, incorporates the sound principles of fish and wildlife science.
The purpose of a CCP is to provide each refuge with strategic management direction for the next 15 years,
by
􀂃􈌠 stating clearly the desired future conditions for refuge habitat, wildlife, visitor services, staffing, and
facilities;
􀂃􈌠 explaining clearly to state agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners the reasons for our
management actions;
􀂃􈌠 ensuring that our management of the refuge conforms to the policies and goals of the Refuge System
and legal mandates;
􀂃􈌠 ensuring that present and future public uses are compatible with the purposes of the refuge;
􀂃􈌠 providing long-term continuity and direction in refuge management; and,
􀂃􈌠 justifying budget requests for staffing, operating and maintenance funds.
We identify several reasons as the need for this CCP. First, the Refuge Improvement Act requires us to
write a CCP for every national wildlife refuge to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. Second, the
Wapack refuge lacks a master plan to accomplish the purposes above. The need for a strategic plan is even
more compelling because this is an unstaffed refuge, and we rely heavily on informal agreements with
partners to assist in managing it. This plan reflects the input of natural resource agencies in New
Hampshire, affected communities, individuals and organizations, our partners, and the public.
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding our Planning
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
The Service is part of the Department of the Interior. Our mission is “Working with others to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.”
Congress entrusts to the Service the conservation and protection of these national natural resources:
migratory birds and fish, federal-listed threatened or endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fish, wetlands,
certain marine mammals, and national wildlife refuges. We also enforce federal wildlife laws and
international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assist states with their fish and wildlife programs,
and help other countries develop their conservation programs.
The Service manual, available online at http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals, contains the standing and
continuing directives on fulfilling our responsibilities. The 600 series of the Service manual addresses land
use management: sections 601–609 specifically address the management of national wildlife refuges.
We publish special directives that affect the rights of citizens or the authorities of other agencies separately
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); the Service manual does not duplicate them (see 50 CFR 1–99
online at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html).
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission and Policies
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set aside specifically for the
conservation of wildlife and the protection of ecosystems. More than 548 national wildlife refuges encompass
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-3
Chapter 1
more than 97 million acres of lands and waters in all 50 states and several island territories. Each year,
more than 40 million visitors hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental
education and interpretation on refuges.
In 1997, President William Jefferson Clinton signed into law the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act (Refuge Improvement Act). It establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System.
“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”—Refuge Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57
It also establishes a new process for determining the compatibility of public uses on refuges, and requires us
to prepare a CCP for each refuge. The act states that the Refuge System must focus on wildlife
conservation. It also states that the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes for which each refuge
was established will provide the principal management direction on that refuge.
The Refuge System Manual contains policy governing the operation and management of the Refuge System
that the Service Manual does not cover, including technical information on implementing refuge policies and
guidelines on enforcing laws. You can review that manual at refuge headquarters. The following are a few
noteworthy policies affecting this CCP.
Policy on Refuge System Planning
This policy (602 FW 1, 2, and 3) establishes the requirements and guidance for Refuge System planning,
including CCPs and step-down management plans. It states that we will manage all refuges in accordance
with an approved CCP that, when implemented, will help
􀂃􈌠 achieve refuge purposes;
􀂃􈌠 fulfill the Refuge System mission;
􀂃􈌠 maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System;
􀂃􈌠 achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System; and,
􀂃􈌠 conform to other mandates.
The planning policy provides guidance, systematic direction, and minimum requirements for developing all
CCPs, and provides a systematic decision-making process to fulfill those requirements. Among them, we are
to review refuge lands for their potential for special area designations (e.g., wilderness and wild and scenic
rivers), and incorporate a summary of those reviews into each CCP (602 FW 3).
Policy on the Appropriateness of Refuge Uses
Federal law and Service policy protect the Refuge System from inappropriate or harmful human activities,
and ensure that visitors can enjoy its lands and waters. This policy (603 FW 1) provides a national
framework for determining appropriate refuge uses and preventing or eliminating those that should not
occur in the Refuge System. It describes the initial decision-making process the refuge manager follows
when first considering whether to allow a proposed use. An appropriate use must meet at least one of the
following four conditions.
1. The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use, as identified in the Refuge Improvement Act.
2. The use contributes to fulfilling the purpose(s) of the refuge, the mission of the Refuge System, or the
goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the
Refuge Improvement Act became law.
1-4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Purpose of and Need for Action
3. The use involves the taking of fish and wildlife under State regulations.
4. The use has been found to be appropriate at the conclusion of a specified process that uses 10 criteria.
The policy may be viewed online at http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/06-5645.pdf.
Policy on Compatibility
This policy (603 FW 2) complements the appropriateness policy. The refuge manager first must find a use
appropriate before reviewing its compatibility. If the proposed use is inappropriate, the refuge manager will
not allow it, and will not prepare a compatibility determination.
You may view this policy and its regulations online at http://policy.fws.gov/library/00fr62483.pdf, including a
description of the process and the requirements for conducting compatibility reviews. Our summary follows.
􀂃􈌠 The Refuge Improvement Act and its regulations require an affirmative finding by the refuge manager
on the compatibility of a public use before we allow it on a national wildlife refuge.
􀂃􈌠 A compatible use is one “that will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the
mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.”—Refuge Improvement Act
􀂃􈌠 The act defines six wildlife-dependent uses that are to receive our enhanced consideration on refuges:
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
􀂃􈌠 The refuge manager may authorize those priority uses on a refuge when they are compatible, and are
consistent with public safety.
􀂃􈌠 A compatibility determination will stipulate the required maximum reevaluation dates: 15 years for
wildlife-dependent recreational uses; 10 years for other uses.
􀂃􈌠 The refuge manager may reevaluate the compatibility of any use at any time: for example, sooner than
its mandatory date or even before we complete the CCP process, if new information reveals
unacceptable impacts or incompatibility with refuge purposes (602 FW 2.11, 2.12).
􀂃􈌠 The refuge manager may allow or deny any use, even one that is compatible, based on other
considerations, such as public safety, policy, or available funding.
Policy on Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health
This policy provides guidance on maintaining or restoring the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System, including the protection of a broad spectrum of fish, wildlife,
and habitat resources in refuge ecosystems.
Biological integrity refers to the composition, structure, and functioning of the biota at the genetic,
organism, and community levels, when compared with historic conditions. The policy defines biological
diversity as the variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic
differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. Environmental health
refers to the composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air and other abiotic features compared
with historic conditions.
The policy provides refuge managers with a process for evaluating the best management direction to
prevent the additional degradation of environmental conditions and restore lost or severely degraded
environmental components. It also provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a refuge and its ecosystem (601 FW 3). It is available at
http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/01fr3809.pdf
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-5
Chapter 1
Other Mandates
Other federal laws, executive orders, treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations on conserving and
protecting natural and cultural resources also affect how we manage refuges. The centralized library of
Service-wide policies, executive orders, director’s orders, and the “Digest of Federal Resource Laws of
Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” are available at http://www.fws.gov/policy/.
Federal laws also require the Service to identify and preserve its important historic structures,
archaeological sites, and artifacts. NEPA mandates our consideration of cultural resources in planning
federal actions. The Refuge Improvement Act requires that the CCP for each refuge identify its
archaeological and cultural values. Highlights of some of those laws affecting CCP development and
implementation follow.
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (Pub. L. 102–575; 16 U.S.C. 470) requires federal agencies
to locate and protect historic resources—archaeological sites and historic structures eligible for listing or
listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and museum property—on their land or on land affected
by their activities. It also requires agencies to establish a program for those activities and carry them out in
consultation with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs).
The NHPA also charges federal agencies with locating and evaluating sites on their land and nominating
them for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. We maintain an inventory of known
archaeological sites and historic structures in the Northeast Regional Office, and file copies at each refuge.
Our regional historic preservation officer in Hadley, Massachusetts, oversees our compliance with the
NHPA and our consultations with state SHPOs. We must also comply with the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act (Pub. L. 96–95, 16 U.S.C. 470aa–mm). It requires that we protect our archaeological sites
from vandalism or looting and issue permits for site excavation.
The Service also owns and cares for museum properties. The most common are archaeological, zoological
and botanical collections, art, and historical photographs or objects. Each refuge maintains an inventory of
its museum property. Our museum property coordinator in Hadley, Massachusetts, guides the refuges in
caring for that property, and helps us comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act (25 U.S.C. 3001, et seq.) and federal regulations governing federal archaeological collections.
Our program ensures that Service collections will continue to be available to the public for learning and
research.
This plan is in compliance with the cultural and historic acts cited above, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, and Endangered Species Act. As we mentioned previously, we developed this CCP and the draft
CCP/EA to comply with NEPA.
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 Report
The Service developed this report (USFWS 2002) in consultation with the leaders of ongoing bird
conservation initiatives and partnerships such as Partners in Flight (PIF), the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan (NAWMP) and Joint Ventures, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
(NAWCP), and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The report fulfills the mandate of the 1988
amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§2901, et seq.), which requires the
Secretary of the Interior to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds
that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.”
The 2002 report contains 45 lists that identify bird species of conservation concern at national, regional, and
landscape scales. It includes a principal national list, seven regional lists corresponding to the seven regional
1-6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Purpose of and Need for Action
administrative units of the Service, and species lists for each of the 37 Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs)
designated by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) in the United States. NABCI
defined those BCRs as ecologically based units in a framework for planning, implementing, and evaluating
bird conservation. The refuge lies in the Atlantic Northern Forest BCR 14 (see additional discussion below).
Our agency’s overarching goal in developing that report is to stimulate federal, state, and private agencies
to coordinate, develop, and implement integrated approaches for conserving and managing the birds most in
need of conservation. The report is available online at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/BCC2002.pdf.
Atlantic Northern Forest Bird Conservation Region Blueprint (BCR 14)
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture partnership created its “Blueprint for the Design and Delivery of Bird
Conservation in the Atlantic Northern Forest” (Dettmers 2005), in response to the NABCI challenge of
building on existing partnerships to plan, implement, and evaluate cooperative bird conservation across
North America. You may read the entire text of that document online at
http://www.acjv.org/documents/bcr14_blueprint.pdf. It presents a strategic design of the key components
that this BCR initiative will need to maintain healthy populations of birds native to the Atlantic Northern
Forest (BCR 14). Specifically, it establishes a series of goals for moving BCR 14 toward a vision of sustained
bird populations; it presents the biological foundation for its recommendations; and, it lays out a framework
for implementing and evaluating those (Dettmers 2005).
The blueprint for BCR 14 identifies 53 bird species designated “highest” or “high” conservation priority in
the region and 15 habitat types important for supporting one or more of those priority bird species during at
least one of their life stages. Seven of the 53 highest and high-priority species have been observed on the
refuge. The habitats identified either need critical conservation attention, or are crucial in long-term
planning to conserve continentally and regionally important bird populations. The refuge offers three of the
15 priority habitat types. We considered each of those species and habitats in writing appendix C, “Species
Known or Suspected on the Refuge, Including Species of Conservation Concern,” and in developing our
objectives and strategies for goal 1.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans
In 1990, PIF began as a voluntary, international coalition of government agencies, conservation
organizations, academic institutions, private industries, and citizens dedicated to reversing the population
declines of bird species and “keeping common birds common.” The foundation of its long-term strategy is a
series of scientifically based bird conservation plans using physiographic areas as planning units.
The goal of each PIF plan is to ensure the long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native birds,
primarily non-game birds. The plan for each physiographic area ranks its bird species according to their
conservation priority, describes their desired habitat conditions, develops biological objectives, and
recommends conservation measures. That priority ranking also factors in habitat loss, population trends,
and the vulnerability of a species and its habitats to regional and local threats.
Physiographic Area 27—Northern New England (June 2000 Draft).—Our planning area lies in
Physiographic Area 27, Northern New England. In developing our habitat goals and objectives, we referred
to its draft plan, now online at http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl_27_10.pdf. That plan (Rosenberg and
Hodgman 2000) includes objectives for the following habitat types and associated species of conservation
concern on the refuge.
􀂃􈌠 Northern hardwood and mixed forest: black-throated blue warbler, Canada warbler, and blackburnian
warbler; and,
􀂃􈌠 Mature conifer (spruce-fir) forest: blackburnian warbler, bay-breasted warbler, sharp-shinned hawk.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-7
Chapter 1
Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, National State Agency Herpetological
Conservation Report (Draft 2004)
Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) was created in response to the increasing, well-documented
national declines in amphibian and reptile populations. PARC members come from state and
federal agencies, conservation organizations, museums, the pet trade industry, nature centers, zoos, the
power industry, universities, herpetological organizations, research laboratories, forest industries and
environmental consultants. Its five geographic regions—Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest and
Northwest—focus on national and regional herpetofaunal conservation challenges. Regional working groups
allow for region-specific communication.
The National State Agency Herpetological Conservation Report (NHCR), a summary report sponsored by
PARC, provides a general overview of each state wildlife agency's support for reptile and amphibian
conservation and research through September 2004. Each state report was compiled in cooperation with its
agency’s lead biologist on herpetofaunal conservation. The purpose is to facilitate communication among
state agencies and partner organizations throughout the PARC network to identify and address regional
and national herpetological priorities.
PARC intends to expand the scope of the NHCR to include other states, provinces, and territories. It will
also include other state agencies that are supporting herpetofaunal conservation and research, such as
transportation departments, park departments, and forest agencies. New Hampshire has completed reports
included in the NHCR online at http://www.parcplace.org/documents/PARCNationalStates2004.pdf. The
next NHCR will integrate the list of species of conservation concern from each state’s wildlife action plan
(see below). We used the latest draft NHCR plan in developing appendix C, “Species Known or Suspected
on the Refuge, Including Species of Conservation Concern.”
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Wildlife Action Plan (WAP 2005)
In 2002, Congress created the State Wildlife Grant Program (SWG), and appropriated $80 million in state
grants. The purpose of the program is to help state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies conserve fish and
wildlife species of greatest conservation need. The funds appropriated under the program are allocated to
the states according to a formula that takes into account their size and population.
To be eligible for additional federal grants, and to satisfy the requirements for participating in the SWG
program, each state and territory was to develop its “Wildlife Action Plan” (WAP) and submit it to the
National Advisory Acceptance Team by October 1, 2005. Each strategy was to address eight required
elements, identify and focus on “species of greatest conservation need,” yet address the “full array of
wildlife” and wildlife-related issues, and “keep common species common.”
The New Hampshire WAP resulted from that charge (NHFG 2005). The goal of the plan is to create a vision
for conserving the state’s wildlife and stimulate other state and federal agencies and conservation partners
to think strategically about their individual and coordinated roles in prioritizing conservation.
In addressing the eight elements below, the NH WAP supplements and validates the information on species
and habitat and their distribution in our planning analysis area, and helps us identify conservation threats
and management strategies for species and habitats of conservation concern in this CCP. The expertise and
the partner and public involvement in compiling the plan further enhance its benefit for us. We used it in
developing the objectives and strategies for goal 1. These are the eight elements.
1. Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low and declining
populations, as the state fish and wildlife agency deems appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity
and health of the state’s wildlife.
1-8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Purpose of and Need for Action
2. Descriptions of locations and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential to the
conservation of species identified in element 1.
3. Descriptions of problems that may adversely affect species identified in element 1 or their habitats, and
priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factors that may assist in restoration and
improved conservation of these species and habitats.
4. Descriptions of conservation actions necessary to conserve the identified species and habitats and
priorities for implementing such actions.
5. Plans proposed for monitoring species identified in element 1 and their habitats, for monitoring the
effectiveness of the conservation actions proposed in element 4, and for adapting those conservation
actions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions.
6. Descriptions of procedures to review the plan at intervals not to exceed 10 years.
7. Plans for coordinating, to the extent feasible, the development, implementation, review, and revision of
the plan strategy with federal, state, and local agencies and Native American tribes that manage
significant areas of land and water within the state, or administer programs that significantly affect the
conservation of identified species and habitats.
8. Plans for involving the public in the development and implementation of plan strategies.
Other Regional Information Sources
We also consulted the plans and resources below as we refined our management objectives and strategies.
􀂃􈌠 New Hampshire Big Game Plan, 2006; available online at
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/Hunting_PDFs/NH_Big_Game_Plan_FINAL.pdf
􀂃􈌠 Society for the Protection of NH Forests, New Hampshire’s Changing Landscape, 2005; available
online at http://www.spnhf.org/research/research-projects.asp#nhcl
􀂃􈌠 New Hampshire Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 2003; available online at
http://www.nh.gov/oep/programs/SCORP/documents/scorpweb.pdf
Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History
With the first donation of 738 acres of land in 1972, the Service established the refuge for the following
purpose and under the following authority: “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management
purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d).
In 1977, another donated tract totaling 934 acres increased the size of the refuge to 1,672 acres. A final land
survey in 1998 adjusted the refuge boundary line, excluding the town of Lyndeborough. That adjustment
resulted in a loss of 47 acres. The refuge now comprises 1,625 acres.
Since the first donation of land in 1972, we have focused on managing the refuge as the deed requires, with
minimal intervention, as in a wilderness area. We prohibit hunting, fish, trapping, cutting trees, and the use
of motor vehicles.
Refuge Vision Statement and Goals
Refuge Vision Statement
Very early in the planning process, our team developed this vision statement to provide a guiding
philosophy and sense of purpose in the CCP.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-9
Chapter 1
“Encompassing the North Pack Monadnock Mountain in southern New Hampshire, the Wapack National
Wildlife Refuge provides exceptional mature spruce-fir and northern hardwood-mixed habitat for wildlife,
particularly migratory birds. We will manage the refuge to preserve its natural conditions in a setting that
appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature.
All visitors are welcome to enjoy opportunities to observe and photograph nature along refuge trails,
including a 4-mile segment of the Wapack Trail. The rock outcrop and cliff on the mountain peak afford an
ideal location to view migrating hawks each fall. Old and new partnerships with other federal agencies,
state agencies, local conservation organizations, and volunteers will foster public stewardship of this
refuge and its resources, and enhance public understanding of the role of the National Wildlife Refuge
System in conserving our nation’s trust resources.”
Refuge Goals
We developed these goals after considering our vision and the purposes of the refuge, the missions of the
Service and the Refuge System, and the mandates, plans, and conservation initiatives above. These goals
are intentionally broad, descriptive statements of purpose. They highlight the elements of our vision for the
refuge we will emphasize in its future management. The biological goal takes precedence; but otherwise, we
do not present them in any particular order. Each offers background information on its importance.
Goal 1. Allow natural processes and disturbances to enhance biological diversity and integrity of upland
wildlife habitat.
Goal 2. Establish a public use program that will encourage compatible, low-impact recreation on refuge
trails.
Goal 3. Enhance the conservation and stewardship of wildlife resources through partnerships with public
and private conservation groups, private landowners, State agencies and local entities.
1-10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 2
The Planning Process
n The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
n Issues
n Issues Outside the Scope of this Project or Not Completely Within the
Jurisdiction of the Service
n Actions Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
View from the top of North Pack Monadnock
Andrew Ward/Conway School of Landscape Design
The Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Service policy establishes an eight-step planning process that also facilitates our compliance with NEPA
(figure 2.1).1 Our planning policy and CCP training course materials describe those steps in detail. We
followed that process in developing this final CCP.
Figure 2.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
In January 2007, we began to prepare for the CCP by collecting information about resources on the refuge
and by requesting available information from surrounding conservation landowners (e.g., Miller State Park,
Joanne Bass Bross Preserve). Graduate students from the Conway School of Landscape Design in Conway,
MA, participated in that project from January to March 2007.
In February 2007, we convened our core team, which consisted of refuge staff, regional office staff, and
representatives of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG) and the New Hampshire
Department of Recreation and Economic Development (NH DRED), Division of Parks and Recreation. We
discussed management issues, drafted a vision statement and goals, and compiled a project mailing list of
known stakeholders, interested individuals, organizations, and agencies. We initiated all of those steps as
part of NEPA Step A; “Preplanning” (figure 2.1, above).
1 602 FW 3, “The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process” (http://policy.fws.gov/602fw3.html)
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-1
Chapter 2
In February 2007, we began NEPA Step B, “Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping,” by publishing a
newsletter to announce the start of the planning process, and to encourage community involvement. We also
worked concurrently on Step C, “Review Vision Statement, Goals, and Identify Significant Issues.”
On February 23, 2007, we formally published the start of the planning process in a Federal Register Notice
of Intent (NOI). We also announced one public scoping meeting in Peterborough to identify public issues
and concerns, share our draft vision statement and tentative goals, describe the planning process, and
explain how people could become involved in and stay informed about that process. The 26 people who
attended helped us identify the public concerns we must address in the planning process.
During March 2007 we reviewed the public comments received at the meeting and via email and regular
mail to firm up our key issues. We also reviewed our draft vision and goals and made some refinements.
This completed Step C, “Review Vision, Goals and Determine Issues.”
Next, we moved into Step D, “Develop and Analyze Alternatives.” The purpose of this step is to develop
alternative objectives and strategies for addressing the issues and achieving the goals. Our preliminary
ideas were presented at a second public meeting on March 6, 2007. We then worked from March to August
2007 to finalize our proposals to serve as a foundation for the draft CCP/EA. In November 2007, we
distributed a newsletter summarizing the alternatives in detail and updating our planning timeframes.
In March 2008 we completed Step E: “Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA document,” and released a draft
CCP/EA for a 37-day public review and comment. In addition, we held a public meeting/ open house on
April 17, 2008, at Shieling State Forest in Peterborough, NH. Fourteen people (non-FWS) attended the
public meeting.
We received and recorded comments from those present at the public meetings. We also received 11 hard-copy
letters or electronic mailing (email) correspondences. Appendix F summarizes those public comments
and our responses to them. In some cases, our response resulted in a modification to original proposals. Our
modifications include additions, corrections, or clarifications which we have incorporated into this final CCP.
Our Regional Director has signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and documented his decision
which certifies that this final CCP has met agency compliance requirements and will achieve refuge
purposes and help fulfill the Refuge System mission (appendix H). It also documents his determination that
implementing this CCP will not have a significant impact on the human environment, and therefore an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.
Issues
During the scoping process, our partners and the public brought to our attention the issues they wanted us
to address, and we identified others in our planning team discussions. Initially, we distinguished between
those issues whose resolution lies within the jurisdiction of the Service, and those that either lie outside the
scope of this analysis or do not fall completely within Service jurisdiction. We summarize those in a separate
section below.
Our discussion of the issues within Service jurisdiction generated a wide range of opinions on how to resolve
them. A more detailed description of those issues follows. Chapter 4, “Management Direction and
Implementation,” includes our plans for addressing these key issues.
Biological Surveys
Because the Wapack refuge is unstaffed, no one is available onsite to conduct biological surveys. Our limited
budget also makes it difficult to contract those surveys to other organizations or individuals. Members of the
community not only are concerned over the lack of biological surveys, but also want us to publish or make
available present and future refuge biological information.
2-2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Planning Process
Vegetation Management
Some members of the public suggested that the Service manipulate vegetation to provide more habitat
diversity for wildlife species on the refuge. They also expressed an interest in reducing mature forest cover
through selective cutting and prescribed burning, to attract more species of mammals (e.g., moose, bobcat)
to the refuge.
Some suggested that the refuge establish clearings by cutting selectively along the Wapack trail, to provide
better birding and viewing at the top of the mountain. We heard that tree growth is obscuring those views.
One person also expressed an interest in our actively managing refuge habitat to maintain blueberry
bushes; they cannot survive under heavy shade. Annual or biannual selective cutting or prescribed burning
would be necessary to remove that shade and promote the growth of blueberries. The deed of donation
restricts any tree cutting on the refuge, except as necessary for maintaining trails.
Invasive Species
The establishment and spread of invasive species, particularly invasive plants, is a significant problem that
spreads across all types of habitat. For this discussion, we use the definition of invasive species in the
Service Manual (620 FW 1.4E): “Invasive species are alien species whose introduction [causes] or is likely to
cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health. Alien species, or non-indigenous species,
are species that are not native to a particular ecosystem. We are prohibited by executive order, law, and
policy from authorizing, funding, or carrying out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction
or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere.”
The unchecked spread of invasive plants threatens the biological diversity, integrity and environmental
health of all refuge habitats. In many cases, because of their competitive advantage over native plants, they
form dominant cover types, thus reducing the availability of native plants as food and cover for wildlife.
Over the past several decades, government agencies, conservation organizations, and the public have
become more acutely aware of the negative effects of invasive species. Many plans, strategies, and
initiatives target the more effective management of invasive species, including The National Strategy for
Management of Invasive Species for the Refuge System (USFWS 2003c) and Silent Invasion—A Call to
Action, by the National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA 2002). The Refuge System biological discussion
database and relevant workshops continually provide new information and updates on recent advances in
control techniques. Funding sources to conduct inventory and control programs also have grown, both
within the Service budget and through competitive grants.
Trail Management and Maintenance
The 4-mile section of the Wapack Trail that runs through the refuge is often difficult to maintain due to the
rocky terrain. That terrain and the unsure footing of the trail may also create a safety issue for refuge
visitors. The compaction of soil and vegetation can increase runoff and, consequently, increase erosion. In
trying to circumvent problem areas, people have created braided trail sections and stream crossings.
There are now four trails on the refuge: the Wapack trail, the 1.1 mile Cliff Trail, and the Ted’s and
Carolyn’s trails (3 miles of their total 5.15 miles run on the refuge). The long-term management and
maintenance of these popular trails is a common issue, given our limited staff and funding.
Trailhead Access to the Northern End of the Refuge
The only way that visitors can access the northern end of the refuge now is by parking on the road shoulder
of Old Mountain Road. Parking there can be problematic for several reasons. First, on many weekends, not
enough parking is available for all the visitors who want access to the refuge. Because of the limited space
for cars, visitors often park in unsafe areas. Once visitors have parked, they must walk along the road to
access the trailhead. That creates another safety concern about traffic on the road. Parking on that road
also creates a problem for the Town of Greenfield’s Department of Transportation. In the winter, cars
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-3
Chapter 2
parked on the side of the already narrow road make clearing it safely even more difficult for snowplows. The
Town of Greenfield is very concerned about this recurring problem, and wants us to work with them in
solving it.
Minimal Service Presence on the Refuge
Our limited staff and funding have prevented us from improving the visibility and presence of the Service at
the refuge and in the local community. Only one sign, erected by the Friends of the Wapack (FOW), shows a
topographic map at the trailhead (the northern end of the refuge). It shows the layout of the Wapack Trail,
but does not provide any information about the refuge (e.g., the refuge boundary, Service contact
information, or refuge rules and regulations). We posted the refuge boundary with standard Refuge System
“blue goose” signs; however, those are the only signs that notify the public they are on a national wildlife
refuge.
Dog Walking
Before this CCP, we had not decided whether to allow leashed dogs on the refuge. Technically, without a
finding of appropriateness or determination of compatibility, dog walking is prohibited on the refuge.
However, our limited staff has been unable to enforce that prohibition, and many refuge visitors are
unaware that the activity is prohibited. Consequently, many dogs have been seen on the refuge. During
several visits this spring and summer, we observed dogs roaming freely without leashes on the refuge trail.
The public expressed an interest in dog walking on the refuge. Many would be satisfied with adhering to a
regulation allowing only leashed dogs on the refuge. Others would like us to allow unleashed dogs that are
under the command and control of their owners. Everyone we spoke with stated that prohibiting dog
walking altogether on the refuge would create confusion when users of the Wapack Trail walk north from
other areas, (e.g., Miller State Park), where dog walking on leash is allowed.
Illegal Camping
No camping is allowed on the refuge. Members of the FOW have seen evidence of camping on the refuge,
but recently that evidence has decreased. The minimal Service presence makes it difficult to monitor the
area regularly for illegal camping and enforce the “no camping” restriction.
Illegal Hunting
The deed restricts any form of hunting on the refuge. Landowners nearby have complained of hearing
gunshots in the refuge area during the hunting season. In response, they called local wardens of the state
game division, with whom we have a partnership agreement. Again, the minimal Service presence makes it
difficult to monitor the area regularly for illegal hunting. Members of the community would like to see more
law enforcement officials (whether state or federal) patrolling the area, particularly during the hunting
season.
Refuge Expansion
Several members of the public suggested that the Service consider expanding the refuge to create better
linkage with other conservation land areas. Some were interested specifically in acquiring adjacent, lower
elevation habitat, including old farm fields. They believe this protection would ensure the support of a
greater diversity of wildlife. Please refer to “Refuge Expansion” below for a more detailed discussion.
2-4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Planning Process
Issues Outside the Scope of this Project or Not Completely Within the Jurisdiction
of the Service
Giving or transferring refuge lands to other local conservation organizations
Members of the public suggested that the Service transfer or give the refuge or refuge management
authority to a state or local conservation organization. They are concerned that the Service is unable to
manage the refuge effectively due to its limited staff and budget. Some feel that other conservation groups
would do a better job of managing refuge resources and improving the visitor experience.
We have no plans to assign staff permanently to this refuge, as other regional priorities and current fiscal
conditions prevent us from doing so. On the other hand, we plan to make several improvements to the
refuge through enhanced partnerships and cooperation with other federal agencies, local conservation
groups, and the public. Those proposals will promote better stewardship of the refuge and raise the
visibility and public awareness of its resources.
Although some suggest that we transfer or donate the refuge to another conservation entity, the deed
prohibits us from doing so. Furthermore, the Service can only relinquish lands it owns in fee through a land
exchange, legislation, or the disposal or transfer of excess property under the Transfer of Certain Real
Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948. For example, the Service can dispose of refuge
lands only after congressional legislation requires it, or because the agency determines that those lands are
excess to its needs and no longer serve the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes for which the
refuge was established. The Service can also exchange refuge land for other land of equal market value and
equal or higher natural resource value. An equalization payment settles any difference in value.
In summary, unless directed by congressional legislation to initiate a disposal or exchange process, the
Service would have to determine that the land of the Wapack refuge no longer contributes to the
conservation of migratory birds and, in the case of an exchange, that the agency would gain land more
important to our federal trust resources. In our professional judgment, that determination is unwarranted.
Actions Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
Federal-designated Wilderness
During the scoping phase of our planning process, we learned of an interest in designating the refuge as
part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Appendix B, “Wilderness Review,”
documents our analysis of the wilderness potential of the refuge, and explains that the formal designation
requires an act of Congress. That usually is predicated upon a recommendation from a federal agency. Our
analysis determined that such a recommendation is not warranted at this time. However, we will reassess
that determination in 15 years, when we revise this CCP.
Refuge Expansion
Many responses in our public scoping process encouraged us to expand the refuge for a variety of reasons.
Some were concerned about the rapid rate of development nearby. Some wanted to link refuge land with
two large conservation projects nearby.
􀂃􈌠 One is the Quabbin to Cardigan Conservation Collaborative (Q2C), which focuses on protecting land
along the Monadnock Highlands, from the Quabbin Reservoir in central Massachusetts north to New
Hampshire’s Mt. Cardigan (The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests 2004). The
refuge lies in the “Wapack Focus Area” of the Quabbin to Cardigan corridor. If you would like more
information, please visit the website http://www.spnhf.org/landconservation/q2c.asp.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-5
Chapter 2
􀂃􈌠 The other is the Temple to Crotched Community Conservation Corridor. The Monadnock Conservancy,
which leads this effort, envisions linking the conservation areas on Crotched Mountain, Pack
Monadnock, and Temple Mountain with a network of conservation easements in the towns of
Greenfield, Peterborough, Sharon, and Temple (Monadnock Conservancy 2006). As with Q2C, the
refuge lies directly in the Temple to Crotched Mountain corridor. For the latest information, please visit
http://www.monadnockconservancy.org/html/what_news20.html.
Despite our interest in seeing those lands conserved for wildlife, neither alternative recommends that we
acquire additional land at this time. Our regional perspective on all the other land protection priorities of the
Service leads us to doubt that we would be able to secure the funding to buy additional land here or hire
staff to manage it. However, if conditions change in the future and more land acquisition funding becomes
available, we may pursue that under a separate environmental assessment and public review. As always, we
would evaluate separately any opportunities that arose to accept donations of land.
2-6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
n Introduction
n Geology and Land Use Setting
n Regional Demographics and Economic Setting
n Refuge Staffing and Operations
n Habitat Types and Vegetation
n Wildlife Resources
n Visitor Services
n Cultural or Historic Resources
Small waterfall on Ted’s Trail
Lelaina Marin/USFWS
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Introduction
This chapter discusses the physical, biological, and human environment of the refuge.
Geology and Land Use Setting
Geology
The bedrock in this region is a type of rock is known as the Littleton Formation: schist and quartzite formed
by the metamorphosis of shale and sandstone during the late Devonian period. The dominant subtypes in
the Wapack Range are gray micaceous quartzite, gray coarse mica schist and rust-colored sulfidic schist.
They provide little buffering of soil pH, resulting in acidic soils. However, over 18 percent of the area from
Crotched Mountain to Temple Mountain contains mica schist that is capable of leaching calcium into
groundwater seeps and springs, which in turn may enrich the soil. Those enriched areas have the potential
to support communities of rare plants (Van de Poll 2006).
The Littleton Formation is very resistant to weathering, resulting in many monadnocks in the region. A
monadnock—named for Mount Monadnock—is a resistant mountain rising above an eroded plain. That
resistance varies according to the relative concentrations of various minerals in the Littleton Formation.
That variation creates the hills and valleys of the Wapack Range (Flanders 2006).
Glaciers started advancing over the region about one million years ago, the last retreating about
10,000 years ago. They scoured the area, removing topsoil and eroding and polishing the bedrock. Groove
marks oriented north-south can be seen in the bedrock along parts of the Wapack Trail. As the glacier
moved up and over North Pack Monadnock, its rate of movement slowed, and glacial till dropped on the
north and west slopes. As it moved down the south slope, it gouged away bedrock, creating steep slopes and
cliffs on the south and east slopes. A hill or mountain created by such glacial activity is called a whaleback
hill or a roches moutonnees (Flanders 2006).
The geology of the refuge has helped form habitat for many species of plants and animals, some of which are
either rare or unique in southern New Hampshire. The mountains and valleys also create a setting for the
Wapack Trail, which offers diverse woodland settings and ridge-top views.
Water
The Wapack Range is the source of the headwaters of the Contoocook and Souhegan rivers. The north
slopes of North Pack Monadnock drain into Otter Brook, while the east slopes drain into Stoney Brook.
Those brooks provide riparian habitat, groundwater recharge areas and vertical migration corridors (Van
de Poll 2006).
Land Use
Since the retreat of the glaciers, erosion and weathering have worked slowly to create topsoil and influence
the landscape of the Monadnock region of today. More recently, human influence has helped shape the
landscape. Evidence shows use by Abenaki Indians for hunting before Europeans settled in the area. The
Abenaki used burning to facilitate hunting, possibly clearing the forests of understory plants at that time.
The first significant influx of Europeans in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries cleared more
than 55 percent of the land for farming. Thin soils on steep slopes were subject to water and wind erosion
during this time period (Wessels 1997).
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, sheep and cattle were pastured on the hillsides and many stone
walls were built to clear fields of rocks and define property boundaries. Raising cattle remained
economically viable until the end of the nineteenth century. At that time, fields were abandoned and allowed
to grow back into forest. Throughout the 1900s, forests in the area were logged when demand was high.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 3–1
Chapter 3
Since the last period of significant deforestation in the 1940s, timber harvests have been selective, resulting
in mixed-aged stands. Coinciding with the decline in agriculture, railroads started bringing visitors to the
area for vacations. The mountains became a place for people to hike, relax and get away from the crowded
cities. People began to build summer homes in the area, and as mobility and the ability to work from home
increased, the year-round population began to climb in the 1970s.
Climate
The climate in this region provides abundant rainfall, potentially heavy snowfall, and a wide range of
temperatures that helps to create the habitat types on the refuge. Although the refuge lies about 50 miles
from the ocean, it has an inland climate. Its proximity to the ocean exposes it to hurricanes, and nor’easters
that form off the coast can cause heavy snowfalls in winter or heavy rains in other seasons. The temperature
extremes range from -35° to 90°F, with a summer average around 70°F. The prevailing summer winds are
west to southwest; prevailing winter winds tend west to northwest. The average precipitation for
Peterborough, NH, approximately 5 miles from the refuge, is 44.6 inches a year.
Air Quality
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) says that air quality for the state is
relatively good. Carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter levels have decreased steadily since
the 1980s. Despite emission controls, levels of nitrous oxide have remained constant due to the increased use
of gas and diesel engines. An ozone smog forms on one out of every four or five days during the summer; the
most affected areas lie in the southeastern part of the state. High ozone levels in New Hampshire are
caused primarily by the transport of ozone and its precursors from areas upwind, in the Northeast and
industrial Midwest. Acid rain, also known as acid deposition, is also believed to originate in the industrial
Midwest, from coal-burning power plants (NH DES 2007).
Global Climate Change
Global climate change is a significant concern for the wildlife conservation community. The Service takes
this issue very seriously, and is working with partners to analyze how a rise in global temperatures may
affect plants, fish and wildlife across the continent, and how our management practices may have to change.
For example, wildlife, and the plants that sustain them, could be greatly affected if they require a minimum
temperature to initiate certain biological changes, such as seed germination or hibernation. Some species
might face drastic changes or reductions in their distribution and range, and breeding success, thereby
affecting their total population. Other species able to adapt quickly might react to those climate changes
with population increases and range expansions. We expect that species ranges will shift northward or
toward higher elevations as temperatures rise, but those responses likely will vary highly among species.
Climate change is already documented as affecting the timing of migration and reproductive success in
birds. Some species have been shown to start migrating earlier in the spring and breeding earlier. Impacts
on species ranges are predicted as habitats fluctuate, influencing the availability of food, breeding habitat
and the length of the breeding season, and competition with other species for resources. Changes in bird
ranges will in turn affect seed dispersal and pollination for plants, nutrient cycling, and natural pest control.
Since amphibians “breathe” through their porous skins during all the stages of their life cycle, they are
considered especially sensitive to changes in temperature and precipitation in their environment. Most
amphibian activities are triggered by rain and temperature conditions; thus, distribution and population size
will change significantly if air and water temperatures change.
Global climate change may also threaten aquatic and semi-aquatic amphibians and reptiles by reducing
wetland acreage due to the frequency and severity of storms and sea level rise. Latitudinal shifts in
temperature and precipitation patterns also have implications to both the local and regional distribution of
amphibians and reptiles, especially those on the edges of their ranges
(http://www.parcplace.org/education.html#threats).
3–2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
The effect of global warming on carbon sequestration is something we are considering in our comprehensive
conservation planning. The Department of Energy defines carbon sequestration as “the capture and secure
storage of carbon that otherwise would be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere” (DOE Office of Fossil
Energy and Office of Science 1999). Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon sequestration.
Terrestrial biomes of all sorts—grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and deserts—are effective both in
preventing carbon emission and in acting as biological “scrubbers” of atmospheric CO2. The DOE notes that
ecosystem protection is important for carbon sequestration, and may reduce or prevent the loss of carbon
now stored in the terrestrial biosphere. The actions in this CCP conserve land and habitat, and thus, retain
the carbon sequestration on the refuge. That, in turn, contributes positively in mitigating human-induced
global climate change.
The forests of New Hampshire are very important resources for ecological and economic reasons; the
changes facing them will have profound effects. In response, both state and federal agencies have initiated
studies to plan for and anticipate impacts.
Regional Demographics and Economic Setting
Population and Demographics
Southern New Hampshire’s proximity to metropolitan areas, like Boston, Massachusetts and Manchester,
New Hampshire, exposes it to urban sprawl. As the real estate in those areas becomes scarcer and more
expensive, city residents look outward for more affordable housing. In addition, New Hampshire offers
outdoor recreation and beautiful landscapes.
An analysis of population data by the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (NH OEP) shows that
the state can be divided casually into the slow-growing north and the fast-growing south. Since 1960, New
Hampshire’s population has increased by about 703,000. More than 60 percent of that growth occurred in
Hillsborough and Rockingham counties. The population trend for state counties between 1960 and 2000
shows that Hillsborough County has the greatest share. Projections for 2010–2030 show that the county will
maintain the highest share of state population. However, growth is expected to shift away from the county
because of the decreasing availability and increasing cost of land, and greater freedom of location in the
future (NH OEP 2006). The estimated 2006 population of Hillsborough County is 402,789, an increase of
66,716 since 1990 (US DOC 2006a). Hillsborough County’s 876 square miles contained 460 persons per
square mile in 2006, compared to 934 square miles of land area and 159 persons per square mile in
Merrimack County, which borders Hillsborough County to the north (US DOC 2006b).
The estimated population between the ages of 20 and 54 in 2005 was 201,157, more than half of the total
population in Hillsborough County. The estimated number of people moving into new homes between 2000
and 2005 was 68,888, compared to 24,643 people between 1995 and 1999. The U.S. DOC estimates that
209,874 workers in Hillsborough County are age 16 and over, of which 195,694 drive, carpool, or take public
transportation an average of 25 miles to work (U.S. DOC 2005).
Business and Economic Climate
In Hillsborough County, management, service occupations, sales and office occupations make up 78 percent
of the workforce, while the other 22 percent work in farming, construction, and manufacturing. In 2005, the
estimated median household income in Hillsborough County was $60,913, compared to the national average
of $46,242 (US DOC 2005). Service industry jobs, including health care, education, and social assistance are
the number one employers in the county.
The Monadnock region of southern New Hampshire attracts visitors from all over New England. The
appreciation of the landscape has fostered conservation efforts through which a significant amount of land
surrounding the refuge has been preserved. That includes the NH Division of Parks and Recreation Miller
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 3–3
Chapter 3
State Park and The Nature Conservancy Joanne Bass Bross Preserve. Both increase opportunities for
outdoor recreation.
Outdoor activities such as skiing, hiking, and observing wildlife are important components of New
Hampshire’s economy. Tourists spent around $2.2 billion on meals and rental tax in 2004, an increase of
5.4 percent from the previous year (Josten and Picard 2006). In 2004, every county in New Hampshire
recorded increases in retail sales of outdoor equipment. Just over half of the $2.7 billion increase in sales
was spent in either Hillsborough or Rockingham counties (Josten and Picard 2006).
Refuge Contributions to the Local Economy
A national wildlife refuge provides many benefits to the local economy. Those include the benefits of open
space and associated reduced cost of community services and increased property tax values, revenues from
the refuge revenue sharing program, and, revenues from refuge visitors who purchase equipment, lodging,
or meals.
Refuge Revenue Sharing
Under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 1935, local taxing authorities receive refuge revenue
sharing payments based on the acreage and value of refuge land in their jurisdiction. The payments are
calculated in one of three formulas, whichever yields the highest amount: three-quarters of 1 percent of the
appraised value of that land, 25 percent of the gross receipts from the sale of refuge products, or 75 cents
per acre of land held in fee title. We reappraise the value of refuge land every 5 years. Until we reappraise a
newly acquired property, the formula uses the purchase price.
The money for refuge revenue sharing payments comes from the sale of oil and gas leases, timber, grazing,
and other Refuge System resources, and from congressional appropriations. Those appropriations are
intended to make up the difference between the net receipts in the refuge revenue sharing fund and the
total amount due to local taxing authorities. The actual amount paid varies from year to year, because
Congress may or may not appropriate funds sufficient for payments at full entitlement. Refuge revenue
sharing payments are provided to the Towns of Greenfield and Temple (table 3.1).
Table 3.1. Refuge revenue sharing payments to the towns of Greenfield and Temple, 2000–2007
Years Town of Greenfield Town of Temple
2000 $2,422 $1,018
2001 $2,472 $1,040
2002 $2,309 $971
2003 $2,420 $1,017
2004 $2,140 $900
2005 $2,241 $1,016
2006 $2,237 $940
2007 $2,163 $909
Revenues from Wildlife Watching
The refuge provides opportunities for wildlife watching enthusiasts, which aligns to local and statewide
economic benefits. Those benefits are due to trip-related amenities such as food, lodging, transportation and
other costs, such as equipment rental. According to the Service publication “2006 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation” (USFWS and US DOC 2007a), 698,000 people
participated in wildlife watching in the State of New Hampshire. A Service study also found that, in New
Hampshire, resident and non-resident wildlife watchers respectively spent about $27 and $151 per person,
per day (USFWS 2003).
3–4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Benefits of Open Space
Forests can bring in a lot of revenue for the surrounding community. In 2001, for example, revenues from
forest-related recreation and tourism in New Hampshire totaled $940 million (NEFA 2004). A review of cost
of community services studies compared the cost per dollar of revenue generated by residential or
commercial development to that of revenue and savings generated by an open space designation. On the one
hand, residential development expands the tax base, but the costs of increased infrastructure and public
services (e.g., schools, utilities, and emergency and police services) often offset any increases in tax revenue.
On the other hand, undeveloped land requires few town services and places little pressure on the local
infrastructure. That results of that review show that favoring residential development at the expense of
open land does not alleviate the financial problems of communities, but rather, is likely to exacerbate them
(Crompton 2004).
Refuges also provide valuable recreational opportunities for local residents, and maintain a rural character
important to many people’s quality of life. Ecologically, refuges maintained as natural lands perform
valuable services in a local community, such as the filtration of pollutants from soil and water that otherwise
would have to be provided technologically at great expense.
Refuge Staffing and Operations
The Service’s 2006 Regional Strategic Downsizing Plan includes the decision to de-staff Great Bay refuge,
whose staff administered Wapack refuge until 2008. Both of those refuges are now administered by Parker
River refuge in Newburyport, Massachusetts. Up through fiscal year (FY) 2007, the budgets of Great Bay
and Wapack were combined and the refuge manager made decisions about how to spend those funds based
on annual priorities. The FY2007 operations and maintenance budget for the combined refuges was
$287,512.68. Those decisions will now be made by the Parker River refuge manager. No buildings or other
structures are located on the refuge.
Habitat Types and Vegetation
The following table summarizes the major habitat types on the refuge. Map 3–1 shows where they occur on
the refuge. We have also included a narrative description of each habitat type.
Table 3.2. Acreage of habitat types at Wapack refuge
Habitat Type Acres*
Northern Hardwood-Conifer 705
Hemlock-Hardwood Pine 550
Spruce-Fir 323
Old Field 35
Scrub-Shrub 12
Talus Slopes <5
Rock Ledges <5
Source: National Land Cover Dataset, U.S. Geological Survey
*acres are approximated based on GIS data.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 3–5
Chapter 3
3–6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forest
The northern hardwood-conifer forest is found around the refuge in the mid-and upper-elevations, serving
as a transition from the lower hemlock-hardwood-pine forest to the high elevation spruce-fir forest. This is
the most abundant refuge habitat type. Approximately 705 acres of northern hardwood-conifer forest are
present on the refuge (table 3.2, map 3-1). The northern hardwood-conifer forest is characterized by
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and yellow birch (Betula
alleghaniensis) (NHFG 2005). The northern hardwood-conifer forest supports a large diversity of plant life.
The most common tree types are yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis),
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), white pine (Pinus strobus) and red oak (Quercus rubra). The
understory of the northern hardwood-conifer forest is very diverse, including striped maple (Acer
pensylvanicum), high bush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and
hobblebush (Viburnum lantanoides). Ephemeral plants and other woodland wildflowers thrive in this forest
type. Trillium (Trillium spp.), goldthread (Coptis trifolia), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), pink lady’s
slipper (Cypripedium acaule), wood sorrel (Oxalis violacea) and several ferns (Pteridophyta spp.) are
found in the herbaceous layer of this forest type (Sperduto and Nichols 2004).
Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest
Hemlock-hardwood-pine forests are transitional forest regions or “tension zones” in New Hampshire. They
occur between hardwood-conifer forest to the north (above 1400 ft) and oak-pine forests to the south (below
900 ft). Hemlock-hardwood-pine forest is the most widely distributed forest type in New Hampshire,
covering nearly 50 percent of the state’s land area. Approximately 550 acres of hemlock-hardwood-pine
forest are present on the refuge (table 3.2, map 3-1).The main matrix forest community that defines this
system is hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest. Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and American beech (Fagus
grandifolia) are the primary late-successional trees in this community, while red oak (Quercus rubra) and
white pine (Pinus strobus) also are typically abundant. Beech and oak trees are important for providing
hard mast for many wildlife species in this ecosystem. Also common in the hemlock-hardwood-pine forest
region are numerous herbs, including starflower (Trientalis borealis), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis),
and Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense). The understory of this forest contains shrub species
such as witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), black birch (Betula lenta), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
ironwood (Ostrya virginiana), maple-leaved viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), wintergreen (Gaultheria
procumbens), and black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata) (NHFG 2005).
Spruce-Fir Forest
The spruce-fir forest, which is the dominant forest type in northern latitudes, covers approximately
10 percent of New Hampshire, occurs on the refuge mostly above 1,500 feet in elevation. Approximately
323 acres of spruce-fir forest are present on the refuge (table 3.2, map 3-1). In this latitude, this habitat type
occurs primarily on high mountain ridges. Trees such as red spruce (Picea rubens) and balsam fir (Abies
balsamea) dominate, while paper birch (Betula papyrifera) and poplar (Populus spp.) are common early
successional species. The spruce-fir forest lacks the diversity of the northern hardwood forest because the
dark shade cast by the canopy and the acidic needle-covered soil make it hard for most species to grow. The
most common shrubs include mountain ash (Sorbus Americana), sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia), and
low bush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium). The herbaceous understory contains clintonia (clintonia
spp.), starflower (Trientalis americana), bunchberry (Cornus canadensis) as well as lichens (Parmelia
spp.) and mosses (Bryophyta spp.). Another key feature of the spruce-fir forest is that the tree size becomes
smaller as the elevation rises toward the summit (Sperduto and Nichols 2004). Upslope, spruce-fir forest
systems typically transition to northern hardwood-conifer systems (NHFG 2005).
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 3–7
Chapter 3
Old Field
The stone walls which crisscross the land near the refuge show old field boundaries, which are clues to an
agricultural history. Natural succession has converted most of the old field habitat to mature forest. The
only old field habitat that remains is on the north slope of North Pack Monadnock. Approximately 35 acres
of old field habitat are present on the refuge (table 3.2). Large junipers growing in this upland field, typical
of old pastures, are now in succession to the spruce-fir forest which surrounds them. High bush blueberry
plants (Vaccinium corymbosum) can also be seen growing in the understory of the forest, suggesting that
they once grew in an open location (Flanders 2006).
Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-shrub habitat refers to shrub-dominated areas with scattered forbs and grasses. These habitats are
typically the result of some disturbance and may include dry shrublands, utility rights-of-way, and old
agriculture fields in our project area. The majority of this habitat type is transitional, and given time, will
become forest. Approximately 12 acres of this habitat type occurs on the refuge (table 3.2, map 3-1).
The New Hampshire WAP describes the decline of this and other woody early-successional habitats in New
Hampshire and throughout the Northeast. In our area land use changes including the loss of farmland, the
increase in residential development, and the suppression of fire and beaver activity, are the reasons this
habitat type is declining. Its decline has implications for many associated wildlife species. For example,
nearly half of the 33 shrubland birds covered by Breeding Bird Survey routes in the Northeast have
significantly declined in the last 35 years. The American woodcock, eastern towhee, and ruffed grouse are
examples of birds documented on the refuge that rely on this habitat type.
Talus Slopes
Only four talus slope natural community systems occur in New Hampshire and one is on the refuge.
Temperate acidic talus slopes are found on the refuge at low elevations below 1800 ft. Less than 5 acres of
talus slope are present on the refuge (table 3.2, map 3-1). They are characterized by oaks (Quercus spp.),
black birch (Betula lenta), and other temperate species. This system tends to have an open woodland
character, with frequent canopy gaps, sporadic large rocks, and occasional lichen-dominated talus barren
openings. This system transitions to forested talus areas characterized by hemlock-hardwood-pine forest or
oak-pine forest systems (NHFG 2005). This rare forest type provides excellent wildlife den sites for small-and
medium-sized mammals (Van de Poll 2006).
Rock Ridges
Rocky ridges occur on outcrops and shallow-to-bedrock ridge and summit settings below those that are
classified on alpine habitat (Sperduto and Nichols 2004). There are two major rocky ridge natural
community systems in New Hampshire; one of them is on the refuge. The montane rocky ridges on the
refuge are dominated by red spruce (Picea rubens), red pine (Pinus resinosa) and red oak (Acer rubrum).
Fewer than 5 acres of rock ridge are present on the refuge (table 3.2, map 3-1). Outcrops include cliff slabs,
which are steep bedrock exposures of <65º slope. These rocky ridges, summits, and slabs have a woodland
to sparse woodland canopy structure ranging from completely open patches to thin forest cover >65%,
much open bedrock exposure, and one or more of the three primary diagnostic communities that overlap in
their elevation ranges (see forest types above) (NHFG 2005). The refuge contains extensive areas of
exposed rock. The amount of exposed bedrock increases with elevation. The numerous ledges and cliffs
include a dramatic 200-foot vertical cliff facing south. That cliff is a fine example of a glacial whale back, with
steep cliffs and talus boulder fields created by physical weathering.
Threatened and Endangered Plants or Rare Plant Communities
We know of no federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered plants or rare plant communities on the
refuge.
3–8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Invasive Plants
No invasive plant species are known to grow on the refuge. However, we have not done an extensive survey.
The areas most susceptible to invasion lie on the edges of the refuge. That is where we would focus our
monitoring program in the future.
Wildlife Resources
Birds
The unfragmented upland forest on the refuge provides ideal habitat for many birds. It includes a wide
variety of habitat of nesting and foraging substrates. Bird surveys were last completed on the refuge during
the breeding season in 2002. Some of the birds observed on the refuge during those surveys include the
ovenbird, hermit thrush, red-eyed vireo, Canada warbler, blackpoll warbler, bay-breasted warbler, black-throated
blue warbler, black-throated green warbler, blackburnian warbler, golden-crowned kinglet, scarlet
tanager, rose-breasted grosbeak and yellow-bellied sapsucker. Several of those species have been identified
as species of concern or priority by the New Hampshire WAP, the Atlantic Northern Forest Bird
Conservation Region (BCR 14) Blueprint, or the Partners in Flight (PIF) Landbird Conservation Plan—
Northern New England (Area 27).
The bay-breasted warbler, Canada warbler, and veery are identified by the New Hampshire WAP as
species of concern or regional concern (NHFG 2005). The black-throated blue warbler, black-throated green
warbler, blackburnian warbler, blackpoll warbler, ovenbird, and yellow bellied sapsucker are identified by
the BCR 14 Blueprint as moderate or high priority species (Dettmers 2005). The rose-breasted grosbeak
and scarlet tanager are identified by the PIF plan (Area 27) as species of high regional concern (Hodgedon
& Rosenberg 2000). The priorities identified in these plans will help us in focusing our research and
monitoring efforts. This forest provides ideal breeding grounds for these neotropical migrant birds that
migrate to these forests to breed during the warm months. Many more species of neotropical and resident
birds exist on the refuge and will be included in Appendix C, “Species Known or Suspected on the Refuge,
Including Species of Conservation Concern.”
Raptors observed on the refuge during our 2002 survey include the red-tailed hawk and the sharp-shinned
hawk. Several other species of raptors can be viewed migrating through in the fall and spring seasons. The
steep cliff habitat on the south side of North Pack Monadnock may provide nesting habitat for the peregrine
falcon. Ruffed grouse, located on the refuge in the wet forested areas is the only upland game bird observed
on the refuge.
Mammals
The refuge provides habitat for many mammal species. Due to their daytime activity the species most
commonly seen are the red and gray squirrel. The red squirrel occupies the upland spruce/fir forest where it
feeds on spruce cones. The gray squirrel builds large nests in the high tree branches of the northern
hardwoods. Many other rodents live in the refuge although they are seldom seen. Stone walls that run
across the property offer habitat for these small animals. The white-footed mouse and the deer mouse build
nests in burrows, hollow trees, and under rocks. The woodland vole is a likely resident of dense shrub areas.
Moles and shrews dwell underground and feed on insects. The porcupine, the largest rodent in the refuge,
has a healthy population due to the abundance of woodland habitat. The eastern chipmunk uses the
deciduous forest for food and shelter (Flanders 2006).
Moose and white-tailed deer are the only hoofed animals on the refuge. The northern hardwood-conifer
forest provides abundant understory browse for these animals. Hemlock trees provide ideal bedding habitat
for the white-tailed deer. Moose use the refuge as an unfragmented upland corridor between wetland
habitats to the east, north and west of the refuge.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 3–9
Chapter 3
The snowshoe hare can be found in thick shrub areas. The steep talus boulder fields offer den sites for
bobcat, gray fox, red fox, coyote and black bear. The remnants of old fields provide hunting habitat for
bobcat although most of this habitat type has gone through succession to forest cover. Black bear, bobcat
coyote and fisher have large home ranges and prefer to use unfragmented mountain ridges for their daily
and seasonal movements. Red and gray fox habitat is abundant on the refuge since these species are
opportunistic feeders and function well in many different habitat types (Flanders 2006).
Reptiles and Amphibians
The most common amphibian on the refuge is likely the red-backed salamander. The refuge also provides
habitat for the red spotted salamander, which finds habitat in the darkness under rocks, humus, and old
logs. The red-spotted newt in its larval stage can be seen on moist rocks and leaves after summer showers
(Flanders 2006). The American toad, which prefers the lower elevations, is also a resident. The wetter areas
may also provide habitat for frog species including the spring peeper, pickerel, and the bull and leopard
frog. These areas may also provide habitat for the wood turtle (Flanders 2006).
The sunny ledges, wetlands, and open woodlands provide excellent snake habitat for the milk snake, garter
snake, and ribbon snake (Flanders 2006).
Invertebrates
Compared to the wooded areas, the old fields on the refuge play host to a larger diversity of insects.
Butterflies, dragonflies, beetles, wasps, bees, ants, and other bugs can be seen throughout the year
(Flanders 2006). The insect diversity on the refuge provides an integral food source to many bird species.
No invertebrate survey has ever been conducted at the refuge; therefore we cannot list exact species’
names.
Threatened or endangered wildlife
To date, no federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered species have been documented on the refuge.
Wildlife Inventories and Monitoring
Studies within the refuge have been limited to bird surveys completed in 2000-2002. Groups such as New
Hampshire Audubon also use the refuge for bird observation and raptor migrations counts. We continue to
encourage compatible wildlife studies on the refuge since it offers a unique opportunity to observe wildlife in
a natural, undisturbed setting.
Visitor Services
Activities specifically allowed or not allowed
The refuge is open to the public from official sunrise to sunset, seven days a week. Annually, the refuge
receives approximately 30,000 visitors.
Prior to developing this CCP, the last time we evaluated public use activities on the refuge was in 1994. Over
the last year we have reevaluated all existing or requested activities in light of the relatively new Service
policies on appropriateness and compatibility, which we describe in more detail in chapter 1. Appendix A,
“Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations” documents our decision on the activities
we plan to allow.
We have found appropriate and compatible the following activities: recreational berry picking, hiking,
through backpacking, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education and interpretation, research by non-Service personnel under permit, dog walking
on leash only, and the annual Wapack Trail Race. All of those were found to be compatible with the mission
3–10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
of the Refuge System and the purpose for which the refuge was established. Additional details on some of
these activities follow.
Berry picking for personal use is allowed only in the areas next to the Wapack Trail.
Hiking and through-backpacking are popular on the refuge trails and we encourage those activities on the 4-
mile section of the Wapack Trail, the 1.1-mile Cliff Trail loop off the Wapack Trail, and the 3 miles of the
Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails that cross the refuge.
Snowshoeing and cross-country skiing are allowed on the existing refuge trails during daylight hours when
there is sufficient snow cover.
Wildlife observation, nature photography, and environmental education and interpretation are allowed
along any of the refuge trails only during daylight hours. All commercial photography must be approved in
advance by special use permit. After hours use of the refuge for these activities requires a special use
permit from the refuge manager.
We will allow the annual Wapack Trail Race under permit with certain stipulations. See that compatibility
determination in appendix A for details.
We have determined other activities are not appropriate and will not allow them. The refuge was donated to
the Service with certain deed restrictions. In addition to the requirement that we manage it in a
“wilderness-like” or undeveloped, natural setting, the deed prohibits hunting, fishing, trapping, traveling in
or using vehicles, and the cutting of trees except for the maintenance of trails. In adhering to the deed, we
do not allow any of those activities on the refuge. We determined that camping, mountain biking, horseback
riding, jogging, and organized or facility-supported picnicking are not appropriate and therefore not
allowed.
Cultural or Historic Resources
The refuge contains no known sites on, or eligible for, the National Historic Register. The service also does
not own any museum property for this refuge. However, it is also important to note that no archaeological
surveys have been conducted and some evidence indicates that Abenaki Indians hunted in the area prior to
European settlement.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 3–11
Chapter 4
Management Direction and Implementation
n Management Direction and Implementation
n General Refuge Management
n Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
View from Ted’s Trail
Lelaina Marin/USFWS
Management Direction and Implementation
Management Direction and Implementation
This CCP includes an array of management actions that, in our professional judgment, work towards
achieving the refuge purpose, the vision and goals for the refuge, and State and regional conservation plans.
In our opinion, it effectively addresses the key issues. We believe it is reasonable, feasible and practicable.
In all program areas, this CCP will enhance the quality and sustainability of current compatible activities,
develop long-range and strategic step-down plans, and promote partnerships.
General Refuge Management
Introduction
This plan includes the array of management actions that, in our professional judgment, work best toward
achieving the purpose of the refuge, our vision and goals for the refuge, and state and regional conservation
plans. In our opinion, this plan effectively addresses the key issues the Service, the state, and the public
identified (see chapter 2).
This plan focuses on improving our biological and visitor services programs by expanding our partnerships
with other federal and state agencies, town departments, local conservation organizations, and individuals.
We will assess and monitor threats to the integrity of refuge habitat by gathering baseline data on plant and
wildlife populations on the refuge. We will use partnerships to continue to maintain trails and to develop and
maintain a refuge parking area. We will also work to increase the visibility of the Service and the refuge in
the local community, and better communicate information about the refuge, its rules, regulations, and
contact information to the public.
Although we cannot acquire more land for the refuge at this time, we will offer our support in protecting
other land in the area. We will help our partners identify land that merits protection, and help them choose
the best methods or techniques for managing it. Please refer to goal 3 for additional information about
partnerships for protecting land.
Controlling Invasive Plant Species
One national priority of the Refuge System is to manage and control the spread of invasive plants. We have
not inventoried invasive species on the refuge; however, we recently began a partnership with the USFS to
conduct one.
One particular concern is glossy buckthorn, which is well established near the refuge. That invasive plant
rapidly forms dense, even-aged thickets in both wetlands and woodland understories. Its seedlings invade
apparently stable habitats, and grow most successfully where there is ample light and exposed soils, such as
along woodland edges and in forest openings created by windfalls (Nashua Conservation Commission 2004).
Those are the areas we will focus on in the future. Our objectives are to ensure that no new invasive plants
establish themselves, and to control the spread of any that the USFS inventory may find.
Maintaining Partnerships
We will maintain our present partnerships with the Friends of the Wapack (FOW), the New Hampshire
Fish and Game Department (NHFG), and the Mountain View Hiking Club. Those three groups are
particularly important and valued partners, whose contributions are vital to our success in managing many
aspects of the refuge. For example, the FOW maintains the 4-mile section of the Wapack Trail and the 1.1-
mile Cliff Trail where they run through the refuge. The Mountain View Hiking Club maintains the combined
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 4-1
Chapter 4
5.15-mile Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails where they run through the refuge. The NHFG assists us with law
enforcement.
Permitting Special Uses, Including Research and Economic Uses
The refuge manager will evaluate the appropriateness and compatibility of all activities that require a
special use permit. All research and commercial or economic uses require special use permits.
Research
Research on species of concern and their habitats will continue as a priority. We will continue to approve
permits that provide a direct benefit to the refuge, or for research that will strengthen our decisions on
managing its natural resources. The refuge manager may also consider requests that do not directly relate
to refuge objectives, but rather to the protection or enhancement of native species and biological diversity in
the region.
We will require all researchers to submit detailed research proposals following the guidelines established by
Service policy and refuge staff. Special use permits will also identify the schedules for progress reports, the
criteria for determining when a project should cease, and the requirements for publication or other interim
and final reports. All publications must acknowledge the Service and the role of Service staff as key
partners in funding or operations. We will ask our refuge biologists, other divisions of the Service, the
USFS, select universities or recognized experts, and the State of New Hampshire to review as peers and
comment on research proposals or draft publications, and will share the research results both internally and
externally with those reviewers and other conservation agencies and organizations.
Some projects, such as depredation and banding studies, require additional Service permits. The refuge
manager will not approve those projects until all their required permits have been received.
Commercial and Economic Uses
All commercial and economic uses will adhere to Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Subpart A, §29.1 and Service policy, which allow those activities if they are necessary to achieve the Refuge
System mission or refuge purposes and goals. Allowing those activities also requires the Service to prepare
a finding of appropriateness, a compatibility determination, and an annual special use permit outlining the
terms, conditions, fees, and any other stipulations to ensure compatibility.
We will consider issuing a special use permit to commercial operators for each activity, such as guided
wildlife viewing, that takes place completely on refuge lands, if that activity meets the thresholds noted
above, including compatibility. In addition, we will require all operators to complete a detailed summary of
their activities on the refuge each year, and require that they conduct periodic visitor satisfaction surveys
using a survey method we review and approve prior to its use. We will modify or deny any subsequent
issuance of annual permits based on annual reports, our field reviews and inspections, and the results of
those surveys.
Distributing Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments
In accordance with the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s), Congress appropriates funds each
year for refuge revenue sharing payments, which are calculated by a formula based on the acreage and
value of refuge land in each taxing jurisdiction. Those payments change with changes in the appraised
market values of refuge lands and new appropriations by Congress. This plan will continue the payments
described in chapter 3 to the towns of Greenfield and Temple.
Protecting Cultural Resources
As a federal land management agency, we are responsible for locating and protecting all historic resources
on the refuge or on land affected by refuge activities: specifically, archeological sites and historic structures
4-2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Management Direction and Implementation
eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and any museum properties. Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires our evaluation of the effects of our actions on any
archeological and historical resources on the refuge, and our consultation with respective State Historic
Preservation Offices. Our compliance with the act may require any or all of the following: a State Historic
Preservation Records survey, literature survey, or field survey.
We know of no archeological or historic sites on the refuge. Should we find any, we will comply with the
NHPA.
Managing the Refuge According to Deed Stipulations
Mr. and Mrs. Marshall, the donors who gave the land to the Service for the refuge, stipulated that we
preserve it in a “wilderness-like” setting, “as a place where the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man, where man is a visitor who does not remain.” That wording in the deed closely
resembles the wording of the Wilderness Act of 1964. During the planning process, we established
communications with a direct descendant of Mr. and Mrs. Marshall who lives in the area and is very
interested in the refuge and its management in compliance with the restrictions in the deed.
We will continue to manage the refuge in a wilderness-like setting and adhere to the restrictions in the deed:
the prohibition of hunting, fishing, trapping, traveling in or using vehicles, or cutting trees except to
maintain trails. This plan will not result in our manipulating refuge habitat, including selective cutting or
prescribed burning. The refuge is not designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System
(NWPS).
Refuge Trails
Four trails are designated for the refuge: Wapack trail (4.0 miles on the refuge), Cliff trail (1.1 miles), and
Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails (3 miles on the refuge). Activities allowed on these trails are documented in
Appendix A, “Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations.”
This plan does not authorize additional trails on the refuge. Please view all designated refuge trails on
map 4–1, below.
Operating Hours and Administration
We will continue to open the refuge for public use from one-half hour before official sunrise to one-half hour
after official sunset, seven days a week, to ensure visitor safety and protect refuge resources. At the refuge
manager’s discretion, special use permits may allow organized, nocturnal activities, such as celestial
observation or wildlife research.
The refuge will be administered from our Parker River refuge office in Newburyport, Massachusetts.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 4-3
Chapter 4
4-4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Management Direction and Implementation
Adaptive Management
This plan will implement adaptive management. “Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of Interior
Technical Guide (2007),” promotes flexible decision-making that we can adjust in the face of uncertainties as
we better understand the outcomes of management actions and natural events. Carefully monitoring those
outcomes helps us adjust our policies or operations in an iterative process to advance scientific
understanding.
Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but rather, a means to more effective decisions
and enhanced benefits (William and Shapiro 2007). The need for adaptive management is even more
compelling because our present information on refuge species and habitat is incomplete, provisional, and
subject to change as our knowledge base improves.
We realize that we must adapt our objectives and strategies to respond to new information and spatial and
temporal changes. We will continually evaluate our management actions, both informally and formally
through monitoring or research, to reconsider whether our original assumptions and predictions were valid.
In that way, management becomes a proactive process of learning what really works. The refuge manager is
responsible for changing management strategies or objectives if they do not produce the desired conditions.
Additional NEPA Analysis
Although NEPA generally requires a site-specific analysis of the impacts of all major federal actions in
either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS), it exempts from
further analysis a specific category that includes implementing priority public use programs, developing
new visitor services infrastructure, and controlling invasive plants.
Other activities categorically excluded from NEPA requirements to prepare environmental documents
generally include routine administrative actions. Normally we can increase monitoring and research that
support adaptive management without additional NEPA analysis, and assuming the activities, if conducted
by non-Service personnel, are determined compatible by the refuge manager in a compatibility
determination. Significant changes may warrant additional NEPA analysis and public comment. Minor
changes will not, but we will document them in our annual monitoring, in project evaluation reports, or in
our annual narrative report.
The only action in this CCP that will require additional NEPA analysis is the construction of a parking area.
We have yet to determine its design and location, so we decided to postpone detailed NEPA analysis until
then. Otherwise, the EA that accompanied our draft CCP fulfills our compliance with NEPA.
Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Relating Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
One of the earliest steps in developing this plan was to formulate refuge goals: the intentionally broad,
descriptive statements of the desired future condition of refuge resources. Goals articulate the principal
elements of refuge purposes and the vision statement, and provide a foundation for developing specific
management objectives and strategies. By design, goals are less quantitative and more prescriptive than
their objectives in defining the targets of our management.
Our next step was to develop management objectives to help us meet those goals. Objectives are
incremental steps toward achieving a goal; they also further define the management targets in measurable
terms. They provide the basis for determining more detailed strategies, monitoring refuge
accomplishments, and evaluating our success. “Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 4-5
Chapter 4
Handbook” (USFWS 2004) recommends that objectives possess five properties to be “SMART”: They must
be (1) specific, (2) measurable, (3) achievable, (4) results-oriented, and (5) time-fixed.
A rationale accompanies each objective to explain its context and why we think it is important. This will help
us determine how to measure our success in achieving each objective.
For each objective, we developed strategies: the combination of specific actions, tools, or techniques we may
use to achieve that objective. Subsequent refuge step-down plans will help us further evaluate how, when,
and where we should implement most of the strategies.
Goal 1. Allow natural processes and disturbances to enhance the biological diversity and
integrity of upland wildlife habitat.
Objective 1. (Collecting Resource Information)
During the 15 years following the approval of this CCP, we will promote a biologically diverse, healthy,
mature forest habitat on 1,625 acres that supports breeding and migrating bird species of conservation
concern, such as the bay-breasted warbler, black-throated blue warbler, black-throated green warbler,
blackburnian warbler, blackpoll warbler, Canada warbler, eastern wood-pewee, ovenbird, veery, wood
thrush, and yellow-bellied sapsucker. In addition, we will conserve habitat for other species listed in the NH
WAP that may be present on the refuge, such as bobcat, eastern small-footed bat, spotted turtle, and
northern leopard frog.
Rationale for Objective
The Service policy “Maintaining the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the
National Wildlife Refuge System” provides refuge managers with a process to evaluate their refuge and
recommend the best direction for managing it to prevent the further degradation of environmental
conditions. To implement that policy fully, we must first assess the current status of the biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health of the refuge through surveys of its baseline vegetation, population
surveys and studies, and any other environmental studies necessary. That will give us the information we
need to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge.
Because the refuge is unstaffed, resources are not readily available to conduct biological surveys. Limited
refuge budgets also hinder contracting those surveys to other organizations or individuals. In 2003, James
Kowalsky completed the most recent surveys of the refuge, which included information on the presence of
breeding bird species, but no information on productivity or survivorship. We also have not surveyed the
forest health, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, or vegetation on the refuge.
Members of the local community expressed their concern about that lack of biological data and the
unavailability of other data to the public. We will obtain more up-to-date data on all refuge resources and
make it available to the public.
We will use a partnership with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Forest Health Protection Program (FHPP)
to complete an assessment of forest health on the refuge. The FHPP works to protect and improve the
health of America’s forests. Its goal is to respond rapidly to forest health threats to avoid unacceptable
losses of forest resources. The FHPP will compile a list of plant species, identify tree mortality, and
determine the presence of any invasive species. That assessment will allow us to identify and monitor any
threat to the integrity of the refuge forest habitat.
To gather information about vegetation and wildlife populations on the refuge, we will use partnerships with
such organizations as New Hampshire Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, the Keene State College citizen
4-6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Management Direction and Implementation
survey group, local conservation groups, and individual volunteers. That research will focus on species of
concern that other state or conservation management plans have identified.
􀂃􈌠 The NH WAP (NHFG 2005) identifies the bay-breasted warbler, Canada warbler, veery, and wood
thrush as forest-dependent species of concern. In addition to bird species, the New Hampshire WAP
lists as species of concern some mammals known in the vicinity of the refuge, including the black bear,
bobcat, and moose.
􀂃􈌠 The Atlantic Northern Forest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 14) Blueprint (Dettmers 2005) lists the
black-throated blue warbler, black-throated green warbler, blackburnian warbler, blackpoll warbler,
eastern wood-pewee, ovenbird, and yellow-bellied sapsucker as moderate to high conservation priority
in forest types found on the refuge.
To provide consistent information that we can compare from year to year, the refuge will develop an
Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP). That IMP will outline the method for assessing whether our
assumptions and management actions are, in fact, supporting our habitat and species objectives. An IMP
will promote the use of coordinated, standardized, cost-effective, defensible methods for gathering and
analyzing population data. It will also allow us to assess new and ongoing surveys and focus our limited
resources on collecting data on resources of conservation concern. Our primary interest in establishing a
thorough, consistent inventory and monitoring program is that it will allow us to control threats to refuge
resources (e.g., a threat from invasive species, or overuse of an area by recreational visitors).
Strategies
Within 2 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈌠 Meet with various partners (e.g., NHFG, New Hampshire Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, the
Keene State College citizen survey group, local conservation groups, and individual volunteers) to
discuss possible partnership opportunities for prioritizing, funding, and conducting compatible natural
resource surveys.
􀂃􈌠 The USFS Forest Health Protection Program will complete a full forest health assessment and help us
identify what to evaluate and monitor as threats to the biological integrity of the refuge.
Within 7 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈌠 Use partnerships (e.g., established from those contacts made in strategy above) for resource data
collection following peer-reviewed or agency approved protocols. Obtain all required permits prior to
field implementation.
􀂃􈌠 Complete an Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP).
Goal 2. Establish a public use program that will encourage compatible, low-impact recreation
on refuge trails.
Objective 2a. (Trail Maintenance)
Within 2 years of the approval of this CCP, develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the
Friends of the Wapack (FOW) for maintaining the segments of the Wapack Trail and the Cliff Trail that
cross the refuge, and an MOU with the Mountain View Hiking Club for maintaining the sections of the Ted’s
and Carolyn’s trails that cross the refuge.
Rationale for Objective
Under an informal agreement, the FOW maintains the 4-mile section of the Wapack Trail that crosses the
refuge. They also maintain the 1.1-mile Cliff Trail, a spur off that 4-mile segment at the top of North Pack
Monadnock. Both the Service and the FOW are interested in formulating a MOU for refuge trail
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 4-7
Chapter 4
maintenance. As a template for our final MOU we will use a draft created in 2004 which was never
implemented.
Given the amount of work and the help the FOW members provide for the refuge, completing a formal
agreement that defines their exact responsibilities is important. Under the final MOU, the FOW will be
responsible for removing major obstructions and litter, installing water diversions to minimize erosion, or
rerouting the trail if necessary to minimize erosion or mitigate the effects of heavy use. They will assist in
marking only what is necessary to keep people on the trail. Yellow triangles painted on trees or rock
outcrops will designate the Wapack Trail; blue triangles will designate the Cliff Trail.
We will meet annually with the FOW to discuss plans for trail maintenance for the ensuing year. That will
give them and us the opportunity to discuss any concerns about the safety or inappropriate uses of the trail.
The Mountain View Hiking Club maintains the combined 5.15-mile Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails. Three miles
traverse the refuge; the other 2.15 miles cross private land. The Mountain View Hiking Club is very
interested in developing a MOU with the Service for the continued maintenance of the sections of the two
trails that cross the refuge.
Similar to our agreement with the FOW, the Mountain View Hiking Club will be responsible for removing
major obstructions and litter, installing water diversions to minimize erosion, or rerouting the trail if
necessary to minimize erosion or mitigate the effects of heavy use. They will also assist in marking the trail.
Some of the sections of the Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails that cross the refuge are designated sporadically with
yellow markers stamped with the Service logo. The Service will provide the club with additional trail
markers to improve the marking in those sections. We will also meet annually with the club to discuss plans
for trail maintenance in the ensuing year.
Strategies
Within 2 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈌠 Complete a MOU with the Friends of the Wapack for trail maintenance on the refuge.
􀂃􈌠 Complete a MOU with the Mountain View Hiking club for trail maintenance on the refuge.
􀂃􈌠 Meet annually with the FOW and the Mountain View Hiking Club to review plans for trail maintenance.
􀂃􈌠 Establish contact with the Marshall family descendant, or designee, if refuge activities may result in
significant removal of vegetation or ground disturbance.
Objective 2b. (Trailhead Improvements)
Within 15 years of the approval of this CCP, work with state and local partners to seek funding for the
design, construction, or, if necessary, land acquisition for a trailhead parking area.
Rationale for Objective
The only way that visitors can access the northern end of the refuge is by parking on the shoulder of Old
Mountain Road, which can be problematic for several reasons. First, we have seen up to 15 cars parked
along the road shoulder during peak season weekends for access to the Wapack Trail. With limited space for
cars, visitors are forced to park in unsafe areas or sometimes leave altogether. Once visitors have parked
their cars, they have to walk along the road to the refuge entrance. That creates another safety concern,
particularly when through-traffic on the road is heavy. Parking on the road also creates a problem for the
Town of Greenfield Department of Transportation. In the winter, cars parked on the side of the road make
it very difficult for snow plows to safely pass and clear a road that is already narrow. The Town of
Greenfield is very concerned about this recurring problem, and will like us to work with them in solving it.
4-8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Management Direction and Implementation
If visitors wanted to access the southern entrance of the refuge, they will have to park at Miller State Park
and hike north through the Joanne Bass Bross Preserve (TNC). Parking at Miller State Park can be
inconvenient, not only because visitors have to hike a farther distance to get to the refuge, but also because
they have to pay for parking. In 2007, admission to the state park cost $3 for adults and $1 for children.
By creating a parking area at the northern entrance of the refuge, we will increase visitor convenience,
improve public safety, and resolve concerns about snow plowing. We will like to build the parking area on a
parcel of land on or near the refuge and the Wapack trailhead. We will consider purchasing a tract from a
willing seller at market value to provide adequate space to establish a safe parking area. If possible, we will
also like to work with the Town of Greenfield to arrange plowing for the new parking area. We do not have a
location or a parking design yet; the location and ownership of the land will dictate the size and
configuration of the parking area. Because the Town of Greenfield owns most of the land around the refuge,
we will meet with the town to discuss possible options for establishing a parking area.
The Brantwood Camp also owns land next to the refuge. It provides a positive camping experience for boys
and girls from various backgrounds who otherwise will miss the opportunity to attend summer camp
(Brantwood Camp 2007). We know that campers quite often use the refuge trail, so they may benefit from
additional parking. We will meet with the Brantwood Camp to discuss opportunities to work together in
establishing the parking area. Since the location of the refuge is so close to Miller State Park, we also
propose to meet with the NH Division of Parks and Recreation to discuss partnership and funding
opportunities to develop parking.
Over the next 5 years, we will seek sources of funding for the design and construction of the parking area.
Two possible sources are the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) and the Public Lands Highways
Discretionary Program (PLHD).
The RTP is an assistance program of the Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). Federal transportation funds benefit recreation by making funds available to the states to develop
and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both nonmotorized and motorized recreational
uses. RTP funds come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and represent a portion of the motor fuel
excise tax collected from nonhighway recreational fuel use: fuel used for off-highway recreation by
snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, and off-highway light trucks (FHWA 2006).
The PLHD Program was designed to improve access to and within federal lands. PLHD funds are available
for transportation planning, research, engineering, and the construction of the highways, roads, parkways,
and transit facilities on federal public lands. Those funds are also available for the operation and
maintenance of transit facilities. In both programs, the state will assist in applying for a grant, which could
propose funds for designing, constructing or, if necessary, acquiring land on which to build the parking area.
Strategies
Within 2 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈌠 Meet with the Town of Greenfield, Brantwood Camp, and the NH DRED, Division of Parks and
Recreation, to discuss possible partnership opportunities for establishing and maintaining a parking
area on Old Mountain Road.
Within 5 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈌠 Determine a specific location for the construction of the parking area on Old Mountain Road.
􀂃􈌠 Work with the State of New Hampshire to seek funding for the design, construction, or, if necessary,
land acquisition for a parking area.
􀂃􈌠 Work with an engineer to design the layout of the parking area.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 4-9
Chapter 4
Within 15 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈌠 Complete construction of the parking area.
Objective 2c. (Service and Refuge System Visibility)
Within 5 years of the approval of this CCP, increase the visibility of the Service in the local community and
improve public recognition and awareness of the refuge and the Refuge System to the extent that
90 percent of visitors contacted know they are on a national wildlife refuge, can identify its purpose, and
know that it is part of a national system of refuges.
Rationale for Objective
Limited resources have prevented us from improving the presence of the Service and the visibility of the
refuge to the public as well as its recognition in the local community.
This plan includes actions to increase Service visibility by improving our signage, fostering new
partnerships for outreach and education, and communicating regularly with federal, state and local elected
officials. We will install a new informational panel at the northern trailhead of the refuge. That panel will
provide general refuge resource and contact information. It will also publish refuge rules and regulations,
including why keeping dogs on leash is important. Because the refuge does not provide any accessible trails,
the panel will also identify the accessible trails in the area.
We will meet with the FOW to discuss providing more signage, and providing information on the refuge and
the FOW. We will also work with the Mountain View Hiking Club to install standard “Welcome to your
National Wildlife Refuge” signs at the refuge entrances of the Ted and Carolyn’s trails. That sign will
simply notify trail users that they are leaving private land and entering a national wildlife refuge.
By posting the rules and regulations on a trailhead sign, we hope to minimize the number of violations on
the refuge. We hope that refuge visitors will re